Agenda item

Dwelling (Resubmission).

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the development of a dwelling (resubmission) at Blue House Farm, Hesleden Road, Blackhall (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.  Members of the Committee had visited the site earlier in the day and were familiar with the location and setting. He drew attention to paragraphs 47 and 48 of the report and the response received from environmental health. The Principal Planning Officer advised that on a single dwelling scheme, it was not deemed necessary to apply conditions to the application regarding matters such as noise and dust. It was therefore proposed that the conditions suggested by environmental health be added as informatives on the application, in respect of considerate construction and wheel washing.        Whilst there was an appreciation that section 215 works could warrant future enforcement action, consideration should be given to staff resources, as such informatives were more appropriate in this matter.

Councillor R Crute, local member, addressed the Committee. He advised the Committee that the previous development of 3 houses at that site took in excess of 5 years to complete and caused inconvenience to nearby neighbours.

Whilst Councillor Crute did not object to the principle of infill on that site, he felt that enforceable conditions were appropriate to the application because of the impact of development. His views were supported by the local Parish Council and residents. As such, he suggested four enforceable conditions be attached to the application regarding a limit on operating hours, an on-site wheel cleansing facility, road cleaning and use of the roads outside of the site.

Members were advised that the roads surrounding the site were currently unadopted, which Councillor Crute advised made the situation for local residents worse. The highways were not wide enough to accommodate lorries parking in the area and such parking would potentially cause damage to pavements. Furthermore, mess would be created on the roads from construction vehicles and debris from the site could have an impact on drains.

Councillor Crute concluded by advising that he would be happy to support the development subject to his suggested enforceable conditions being attached to the application.

Mr Olaman, applicant, addressed the Committee. He advised the Committee that he had owned Blue House Farm for almost 30 years, having bought the property from the County Council. The site had been in a derelict state at that time, with a pig sty and several barns also on the site. Originally, Mr Olaman had demolished and removed most of the non functional buildings from the land.

Members were advised that a nine acre field next to the farm was rented from the Council by Mr Olaman each year and in the late nineties, he sold the field to a developer. The developer was to go on to build 70 houses on that land, however the only way the development could commence was for drains to be run through Mr Olamans existing land. Mr Olaman had agreed and in return the developer deviated from the original plans allowing him to maintain his existing access to the farm.

Mr Olaman advised that in 2002 he applied for planning permission to develop 5 properties. 2 were completed in a timely manner and sold within 12 months, though he made no profit. He then advertised the further 3 plots ,and subsequently sold Plots 1 and 3, with a clause attached to Plot 1 to retain vehicular right over it but for the roadway to be constructed by the buyer.

Plot 2 was retained by Mr Olaman and he subsequently entered into a contract with the buyer of Plot 1 to build him a property at the same time as the other 2 plots. Mr Olaman advised that the development commenced in 2008 however in 2010 the developer went into liquidation, it therefore took a further two and a half years for his property to be completed. He advised that he had a road and a drive outside of his property which he used daily and at no inconvenience.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to all comments made as follows:

• In response to Councillor Crute’s comments regarding the enforceable conditions, the Principal Planning Officer maintained that because of the size and nature of the site, informatives would be more appropriate than enforceable conditions. In respect of a wheel cleaning facility, Members were advised that would be more commonplace on a larger site.
• Unadopted highways – Members were advised that notification had been received earlier that day that a change had taken place in relation to the adoption of the drains, which meant that the roads could soon be adopted.
• In relation to the parking of wagons near the site, Members were advised that the Planning Authority could not condition because at the current time the roads were unadopted, therefore that matter would have to be subject to private legal action.

The Principal Development Management Engineer addressed the Committee. He advised that there had been a long delay in the adoption of the roads on Whindyke estate due to an issue with the adoption of the sewers. Members were advised that that issue had now been resolved, the bond had been called in which would allow minor works at Whindyke to be completed, following which the roads could then be adopted by the Highways Authority. This was anticipated to be completed by August 2013.

Having viewed the area at the site visit earlier that day, Councillor Charlton felt that the site did require attention and moved approval of the application, though felt that the enforceable conditions suggested by Councillor Crute, should be applied. The motion was seconded by Councillor Blakey.

Councillor A Bell referred to the entrance to the site which was currently in a poor condition. Having received confirmation from the Principal Planning Officer that the adoption of highways would not include that area, Councillor Bell enquired as to whether a further condition could be applied requiring the entrance to be up to the adopted highway be brought up to an acceptable standard before anyone took up residence in the property.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that there were ongoing ownership issues and as such there would be a reluctance to apply any such condition. The first section of the road outside of the properties was not in the applicants ownership, and while the applicant could volunteer to develop and maintain the area of the entrance, it was uncertain as to what the legal rights over that area would be.

The Solicitor advised that the Committee could not insist that the works were necessary as part of the development, which was the primary test which should be applied. It was unlikely therefore, that such a condition could be imposed, and though the applicant might wish to give an assurance that the works would be done, he reiterated that it was unclear as to what his legal rights would be.

The Chair brought in Mr Olaman to address the issue. Mr Olaman produced an original document which set out that the owner of Plot 1 would create the road and driveway outside the 3 properties and then proportionally and collectively, the owners of Plots 1, 2 and 3 would contribute to the maintenance. All 3 would be proportionally liable with varying degrees of responsibility, but the construction was the responsibility of the owner of Plot 1.

The Solicitor therefore advised the Committee that while Mr Olaman had a right of access, he had no responsibility to develop and, as produced by the applicant, there were legal covenants which covered future maintenance. The applicant had no control and as such could not undertake upgrade works, Members were as such advised that it was not legally possible for any such conditions to be imposed.

Councillor Bell acknowledged that the entrance road was not part of the application, however felt that the Committee now had an opportunity, having seen the area, to address that problem. The Solicitor clarified that the area was a private shared driveway and the document produced by the applicant detailed the covenants in connection with the sale of the land.

In response to a query from the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer clarified that the land contamination issue was addressed at Condition 5 within the report. The condition required that the applicant address the land contamination issues and then submit evidence to the Council that an assessment had been done. Members were advised that this would normally be done in conjunction with officers from Environmental Health.

In response to a query from the Committee the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the wall surrounding the site would be reduced in height as part of the highway improvement works. The Principal Development Management Engineer clarified this would be done to allow for the development of 2 parking bays on the site, the wall would be reduced to allow good visibility of the road from those bays.

The Solicitor clarified the conditions which were to be applied to the application. Two conditions would be applied relating to the operating hours on site during development, and the provision of a wheel cleaning facility on site.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that whilst the site may not be of sufficient size to accommodate a trough style cleaning facility, a hand jet wash may prove more appropriate.

In response to a query from Councillor A Bell, the Principal Development Management Engineer clarified that the site plans illustrated a widened entrance to the site with the existing wall to be completely removed at the point of entrance.

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to conditions detailed within the report and additional conditions considered necessary by the Committee (including specific conditions on operating hours and wheel cleaning facilities), with responsibility for the wording of the additional conditions delegated to the Principal Planning Officer.